As one who spent years in our Defence Department before moving to the
foreign affairs area, I have followed with interest and growing concern
the comments on the Defence White Paperís assessment of our strategic
security situation. The Paper itself really worries me, for it appears to
be moving us in the wrong direction, and cost. The proposed massive
development of our air and naval forces is surely quite out of proportion
to the reportís assessment of the present situation, especially in the
nearby region where the security situation has improved significantly in
recent years, both in terms of shifts to democracy and levels of violence
and terrorist threats.

We cannot predict what lies ahead, but letís focus on threats we can
realistically deal with, and, more importantly, intensify our efforts to
make multilateral peace-keeping arrangements more effective, as both Mr.
Rudd and President Obama have at various times urged. We cannot match the
military power of the big powers, so in the unlikely event of a threat
coming from that direction, the effectiveness of bodies like the UN
Security Council or regional bodies would surely be our best defence. Letís
not try to match the military capabilities of China, India, Russia or the
United States. There is currently alarm about Pakistan, with its
significant military and nuclear capability, but that capacity is more
than matched by Indiaís greater military power.

The realistic foreseeable threat is manageable without the development
of a powerful strike force, which will merely serve to provoke regional
fears that we are claiming the right to launch pre-emptive strikes, a
concept that caused alarm when Howard was in office. The development of a
force of 12 submarines and 100 strike aircraft will not only involve a
huge cost: it could easily provoke a regional arms race that would
increase rather than diminish the risk to Australiaís security. As for
the boat people issue, we do not need submarines, cruise missiles or
powerful frigates to deal with them. In the first instance that problem is
essentially humanitarian and we should deal with it accordingly.

Already our military capability is the most powerful in the Southeast
Asia region. If the Government goes ahead with this plan it could do more
to increase tensions and suspicions that to secure peace in our immediate
neighbourhood, with right-wing generals returning to political power on
the basis of fears of Australiaís intentions. It would play into the
hands of those Indonesian generals who are still smarting from the
Interfet intrusion that they found humiliating.

But with democracy taking root in the region, where are these threats
likely to come from? India has a much larger military capability, but it
is really inconceivable that a military conflict would develop between our
two countries. China, for all its power and undemocratic rule, unlike
European powers, has never been expansionist. Japanese governments are
restrained by the strong anti-war sentiments of its people, as well as
constitutional restraints. It takes us back to Indonesia, long been
regarded as a potential threat, but the present direction of Indonesian
politics has surely reduced that danger. At the recent election the
orthodox Islamic parties polled badly, and moderate President Yudhoyono
has emerged as the most popular leader. Former Kopassus commander, retired
general Prabowo Subianto, may have gained some popularity, but it is
precisely this sudden move by Australia to establish military hegemony
that could help a suspect war criminal into office.

What is absent from the discussion is the alternative; how to improve
our security by non-military means. Firstly, we should move to strengthen
the UN Security Council, including pressing for those reforms Kofi Annan
had recommended (and which the Bush Administration blocked), in order to
improve its capacity to prevent conflicts and deter aggressive attentions.
And let us look at ways of improving regional security; bringing it into
line with the situation in Western Europe. I would like to see Australia
convene a regional security forum, aimed at containing, or even reducing,
military expenditure, enabling billions of dollars to be spent on
improving health services, and on poverty elimination. Such a regional
arrangement could in turn seek non-aggression treaties with China, Japan,
India and Pakistan. This kind of multilateral approach is the humanitarian
alternative to military responses that seem so inappropriate at this point
in our history. Such responses are bound to lead to wasteful expenditures
on measures that risk setting back efforts to bring democracy and better
living conditions, and a durable peace, to the region. The climate change
factor keeps creeping into this debate, but surely in the event of a
natural disaster in our neighbourhood we donít see ourselves repelling
the fleeing victims with naval power? In such an event, our best security
response, as well as our moral obligation, is surely massive and prompt
humanitarian assistance, reminding ourselves, in the words of Mahatma
Ghandi, that Ďall men are brothersí(and sisters, to bring it up to
date)..